I mean, you could still attempt it since you were already dabbling in it, but it might not be the effort level the study was actually aiming for. It would definitely be easier to get away with doing the harder effort level on the bike than the run so there’s more caution needed there depending on how resilient you are to run injuries–it would probably destroy me without a long build up, which is what I’m actually trying to do right now. 
To add more info
The subjects were
specialist long-distance runners (best performance for the halfmarathon 83±5 min) or +/- 4%
My HM pr set May 2019 is 1:24:46 falling in line with these runners… current vdot proposes a HM time of 1:21:43 at VDOT 57 ~6:15/mile
examples in the paper showed ~15kmh for MLSS or 6:25/mile
Workout chart also shows of 2532 meters(1.5733119318 miles) for 10min. Maths out to 6:21/mile.
Sheds more light that T pace is too fast to be in line this study, and looks more like to be just slower than VDOT HM pace. Really no true way of knowing without blood tests.
Sounds like a good guess.
My half M PR is 1:22:xx (less than ideal weather) few weeks after i did a 17:42 5k (almost perfect weather).
Interesting. That 83min +/- 5 minutes is a pretty large window (0:46/mi between high and low end HM pace) and a significant difference in pace so it would be easy to get wrong either faster or slower. i.e. 6:25/mi for a 1:28:00 HM would be 10K pace, 0:05/mi slower than HM pace for a 1:23:00 HM and 0:13/mi slower than M pace for a 1:18:00 HM. So without actual testing like you mentioned, probably just sticking with their more general description of slightly faster than M pace would be the safe route–that’s still like 90% Max HR, so not an insignificant effort.
The Ingebrigsten training methodology is centered around true threshold running, but they do much shorter intervals than what’s laid out in this study (and do hardcore blood lactate testing to make sure they’re in the correct zone).
plugging in percentages to the workout creater in training peaks puts me at 96-97% of Threshold to get between M and HM pace, which coincides with the exact training I did on the bike.
All my bike workouts were always between 95-99%(undulating sets like Donner for example ) so i never rode at true tested threshold watts.
Sounding like a good plan to target 6:20-6:25 per mile
Thats a good compromise. Specially if you are planning to keep hard efforts on the bike.
As my first and only race this year was last weekend (half distance triathlon) I was thinking on working on my speed.
I would first try setting a new mark on the 5k with sub 16min and when I reach this going for a sub 35min on the 10k.
Found a few example plans on the internet. If someone has some good input always welcome
I’ll be starting the Run Less Run Faster 5k plan in November
Let start with what are your PRs and your current fitness level and experience.
Its a lot of effort an miles to drop to 16 minutes.
Oeps, I meant a sub 17min on the 5k
As my current PR on the 10k is 36min I was looking for a plan to go sub 35min.
They mentioned to try first to go sub 17min on 5k before going for the 10k.
My PR on 5k is 18min currently (ran individually)
PR on HM is 1u18:14 (run in a race with pacer)
I’m running for several years now of which the last 4 years in function of triathlon. About 3-4 workouts a week throughout the year.
Your 5k seems to be slower than you are probably capable of.
Your 5k SHOULD be in the 17s with a half matahon and 10k like that.
An 78 min half is outstanding. My 5k PR is 17:42 few weeks before a 82:xx.
Now, the main issue will be the balancing act of training hard to drop to sub 17 and keep the bike fitness.
Training for a faster 5k will take 2-3 running wo a week. And your legs will not be happy if you also try to do cycling wo all the time.
Getting faster in running is painful. And for every second you want to cut it will get exponentially harder.
I believe you are correct about my 5k PR.
I just checked and I see my 5k PR was set during a 10k effort 
(17.53 to be exact)
I know it will be hard workouts to achieve it. That is why I would start with it in a few weeks in the off season while my fitness is still good.
I also hope to get tougher in race by doing this. Push harder for longer times.
Do you plan to keep the cycling wo?
Or cycling will be recovery?
Did not think about that yet.
For sure I will not be able to do VO2max or thershold workouts day after a hard run WO 
Bike WO’s usually don’t influence my run WO. But the other way round it does.
I’m having this same decision…or will be shortly. My 5k PB is 18:54 and want to get to down to at least 18:30, ideally 17:XX. Happy to spend few months over winter focussed on running and 5k and 10k in particular for some races I have in mind…but don’t want to lose (much) of my bike strength I’ve built up. Currently do 3 runs and 3 rides a week but thinking I will need to change to 4 and 2 run/bike during this time…how best to keep bike fitness without hurting run too much! Thinking hour workout with 40-45 mins sweet spot each week and one other workout a week mixing it up based on how feel (sometimes V02, sometimes over/unders, more sweetspot and if tired then just endurance or tempo).
thats good.
My running usually suffers after a hard bike (vo2max or over unders).
You can probably keep do 3 bikes, 4 runs. One bike day would probably be a brick or to add running volume. 1 vo2 max run (400 to 1 mile repeats), 1 Threshold run, and 1 long-ish run.
First workout finished. Very sustainable for me. Seems like the right pace for this temperature today.
Reading back thru the study I find it odd in the section about TTE for MLSS went from
44±11 min before to 63±12 min after training,
The odd thing is that that all shorter than the subjects’ HM time. I guess it can be attributed to having to do 2 20min tests beforehand, but the study didn’t say if they were done back to back.
all this running talk kind of make me want to go back to a running block!
Yea I actually looked forward to the workout today